A Comparative Analysis of the Endocannabinoid System in the Retina of Mice, Tree Shrews, and Monkeys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The endocannabinoid (eCB) system is widely expressed in various parts of the central nervous system, including the retina. The localization of the key eCB receptors, particularly CB1R and CB2R, has been recently reported in rodent and primate retinas with striking interspecies differences. Little is known about the distribution of the enzymes involved in the synthesis and degradation of these eCBs. We therefore examined the expression and localization of the main components of the eCB system in the retina of mice, tree shrews, and monkeys. We found that CB1R and FAAH distributions are well-preserved among these species. However, expression of NAPE-PLD is circumscribed to the photoreceptor layer only in monkeys. In contrast, CB2R expression is variable across these species; in mice, CB2R is found in retinal neurons but not in glial cells; in tree shrews, CB2R is expressed in Müller cell processes of the outer retina and in retinal neurons of the inner retina; in monkeys, CB2R is restricted to Müller cells. Finally, the expression patterns of MAGL and DAGLα are differently expressed across species. Overall, these results provide evidence that the eCB system is differently expressed in the retina of these mammals and suggest a distinctive role of eCBs in visual processing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".